One State/Two State
Nathaniel Berman has a fascinating and provocative piece over at Zeek questioning the two state solution:
Indeed, the “two-state solution” has now come to function as an apologetic myth for the Jewish mainstream.Today, it is an alibi for its refusal to confront the concrete situation. That concrete situation is one in which, since 1967, i.e., approximately two-thirds of Israel’s existence, there has been “one state” between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Since the basic positions of both Palestinian and mainstream Israeli leaders mean that two states will never be set up, the “one-state” status quo, which is what we have and will have for the foreseeable future, is what we have to face up to.
The full essay is here.
I’m always confused by these types of analysis – since they seek to equate the efforts of French liberals with Jewish liberals, in both Israel and the Diaspora. While the title is provocative, I’m not sure this essay is asking difficult questions, or offering challenging answers.
Really? It seems like the essay is offering a clear answer: that it’s probably already too late for a two-state agreement, and one democratic state is the best way.
Berman makes one error, btw, in writing that the Golan’s Arabs live under Israeli military occupation. They just don’t.
“Indeed, the “two-state solution” has now come to function as an apologetic myth for the Jewish mainstream.Today, it is an alibi for its refusal to confront the concrete situation. That concrete situation is one in which, since 1967, i.e., approximately two-thirds of Israel’s existence, there has been “one state” between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Since the basic positions of both Palestinian and mainstream Israeli leaders mean that two states will never be set up, the “one-state” status quo, which is what we have and will have for the foreseeable future, is what we have to face up to.”
That is just a fancy way of saying that there is currently one-state in Israel/Palestine, because Israel rules over Palestinians. I think most people have already faced up to it. A good bloc of global opinion believes that a one-state solution is the only viable option. Berman seems to be addressing alte-kakes and wishy-washys who actually claim that two separate states for two separate peoples is possible in the foreseeable future.
Berman seems to be addressing alte-kakes and wishy-washys who actually claim that two separate states for two separate peoples is possible in the foreseeable future.
Somehow I still cling to the fantasy that there will be a partition that grants the Palestinian their own place, and the Zionist enterprise will be saved in the process . . . . but deep down I know that Berman and eagtb are probably correct.
Opening the West Bank for open settlement IS the Zionist enterprise. I’m sure Ramallah will retain some autonomy is Zone A and B. That’s all Rabin wanted, anyway.
That’s all Rabin wanted, anyway
Rabin blew it. He signed the worse deal possible, one that did not tie up any of the “loose ends.”
The problem of course is that the one state will not be viable either.
An interesting essay, for sure. I’m just not convinced that the Jewish founding of Israel is comparable to the French occupation of, for example, Algeria: the two situations are inherently unequal. This seems to be a paradigm constructed often by those who oppose any Jewish state in any sense of the word. Israel (for all its many flaws) was a nation founded by refugees, in a place they did in fact have a historical connection to. The French never had any right, no matter how thin or small, to occupy a foreign nation. Obviously this does not excuse the Israeli gov’t for their actions, many of which I believe are near unforgivable. But I do not think the comparison can or should be made between Israel and foreign occupying powers.
Ilana is pretty spot on. It’s much more like Liberia, which was founded under US support by freed slaves in the 19th century. This is an example of a different form of colonization, where a more powerful political agency makes repatriation based loosely connected ethno-historic connection, in that these people came from the continent of Africa, but the sociological and cultural connections had been severed by a number of generations. In our case, many many many many generations. In the case of Israel, it was not as cleanly ushered in by just on nation in particular, as it took lots of work to gain the support the Zionists achieved. But if an analogy must be made, perhaps Liberia is more appropriate that an example of like Algeria or any other French colony.
I don’t argue with Berman’s premises, but some days I don’t get why the possibility for the two-state solution is dwindling. It is recognized by both parties that the largest settlement blocs would remain with Israel. Provided compensation (and facing the end of living subsidies), the majority of settlers in small settlements would leave, according to extensive polling on the matter. Only a sliver of diehards would refuse to leave. If it actually faced the likelihood of a one-state solution tomorrow, I believe Israel would sue for peace in this way. The one state solution isn’t a solution, it’s a useful threat against settler activists.
Secondly, a one-state solution would still be a two-state solution: the Jewish Israelis have all the wealth and representation in every national governing body. The Palestinians would continue as second-class citizens facing entrenched discrimination. Both peoples, deeply married to the concept of self-determination, would have to do an about face on a hundred years or more of nationalism. The entire legal codes and national symbols of the country would have to be rewritten and voted into effect, which I can only imagine as problematic as what is happening in Iraq now. Violence would continue as terrorists and settler extremists continue to espouse ethnic domination and revenge. Riots between Jews and Arabs would be commonplace over each ill-executed (or resisted) attempt at integration of two peoples into one government, military, police force, education system, et al. With open borders to the Arab world, I can only assume that fear of terrorism from abroad would result in the Jewish sector retreating into private security enclaves. Parts of the elite of both groups would leave the country, meaning Jews who fear their safety and Palestinians seeking better opportunities than minimum wage labor. The Jews would find themselves as top dogs in a country still killing along ethnic lines; Palestinians would find themselves still fighting tooth and nail for equality. The journey to “peace” would be another 60 years in the making and quite possibly a retreat back into nationalism and a renewed two-state solution.
…For the sake of preserving lives instead of intellectual consistency, I don’t think a one-state solution brings us closer to peace. In fact, I think it puts us further from it.
KFJ,
I’m not advocating it, but you made me think of it, what if the hypothetical was one in which a new form of bi-national government was forged? might this prevent the very real likelihood of what you put forth? That being said, I don’t think Israelis and global Jewry would like that idea…
Liberia! Wow… you’ve given me a lot to consider. I never thought of the comparison. Very interesting.
It is recognized by both parties that the largest settlement blocs would remain with Israel
Can somebody explain why it is so vital that Israel retain sovereignty in the largest settlement blocs?
Jonathan1 — I wonder that myself. I presume it’s partly the sheer economic investment that would be lost there, and party the fact that’s where the majority of settlers live (250,000+ or so) and moving them would be a logistical and economic nightmare. That and keeping their vote in this process. But that is my own guestimations.
Justin — I presume that whatever elements of sovereignty and governance are shared by a bi-national state will be fought over, bitterly. New flag or anthem, a joint military, economic treaties, taxation, et al. The biggest question for me is whether there would be open borders with the Arab world, meaning when the entire Arab world is able to access Jerusalem for the first time in 40 years, will the threat of terrorism increase?
I think we can all agree in hoping that things end up better for Israel than they have for Liberia so far.
@BZ, well, yes, certainly, I am not wishing two civil wars on anybody, just trying to provide a better colonization analogy than the one presented.
With the exception of a handful of communists and Palestinian exiles holding tenured professorships at European and US universities, the Palestinians don’t *WANT* a one-state solution.
They want their own state. Poll data consistently shows this. To the extent that they pay lip service to the one-state thing, it’s tactical.
Jews arguing for a one-state solution in the face of massive Palestinian popular support for sovereign Palestinian statehood is condescending, presumptuous, and more than a little “colonialist.”
rc-
i agree with most everything you just said but I don’t see colonialist, unless you’re referring to a one-state solution where Israel absorbs all Arabs without actually becoming a bi-national state, or I suppose even the opposite, with Palestine absorbing all Israelis without being a bi-national state as well. But do you see bi-national one-state solution people as colonialist also?
I agree with what rootless just said, although less strenuously, because Jews don’t necessarily know what average Palestinians think. Hell, most Jews think Palestinians tune into their anti-Semitic Mickey Mouse show every afternoon, when most Palestinians have never even heard of such a thing. So we can excuse Jews (and non-Jews) whose impression of Palestinian society is other than reality. (Maybe not excuse them, but we can accept lower expectations.)
What really mystifies me are Diaspora Palestinians and Palestinian solidarity activists who’ve been to Palestine and should, for lack of a better phrase, “know better.” It confuses me and I’ve been meaning to ask others about it.
Justin –
Though Berman nowhere explicitly states as much in the essay, I have to assume he is arguing for a democratic, binational one-state solution.
Elites such as Nathaniel Berman (be they Jewish or Palestinian) who purport to know what’s best for the little Palestinians (in this case a binational, democratic one-state solution) evince a colonialist mindset. It’s particularly rich in this case as Berman’s essay is dressed in anti-colonialist language.
Berman’s alleged “consensus” for a binational, democratic single state may very well exist — between both Palestinian and Jewish sociology professors. However, a vast majority of the people who would actually have to live in this binational state are in fact opposed to it. They’d rather their own respective states.
Berman says, “‘One-state’ is neither a ‘solution’ nor a ‘dream’ nor a ‘nightmare’: it is what we have now.” He then goes on to suggest that, “not only a century of hatred and violence, but also the two peoples’ fierce and perhaps incompatible passions for self-determination may make a truly democratic single state impossible,” BUT that the two-state goal should nonetheless no longer be used as a pretext for maintaining the existing single state as currently constructed.
To recap: There already is “one-state.” And it’s undemocratic. And the competing claims of each party likely make a democratic single state impossible. But we nonetheless shouldn’t strive for two states either. Because striving for two states actually just perpetuates the current one-state status quo. Which is undemocratic. Got it?
Berman’s piece is quite frankly bizarre. He appears to actually lament the fact that the “two-state solution” has in fact moved to the mainstream of Israeli politics.
Leftists should applaud this. What is considered today to be “centrist” in Israeli politics (e.g. two states) would have been beyond the pale even by leftwing (think Mapam) standards back in the day.
But rather than applaud the entry of the two-state solution into the mainstream Israeli discourse, Berman merely moves the goal posts. Whereas the traditional (say, 1948-1990’s) Israeli “one-state” paradigm was oppressive, so, too, is the current “two-state” one. According to Berman, it’s not that an Israeli majority once opposed to Palestinian statehood has come to embrace it. Rather, it’s that the Israeli majority continues to oppose Palestinian statehood, but now does so under the guise of “two states.”
It’s really just a whole lot of blah blah. Berman asks …should full civil and political rights be given to all inhabitants of the “one-state,” including all Palestinians? Or, on the contrary, should the granting of such rights be limited by the Green Line, whose erasure was the explicit goal not only of the settler movements but also of all previous Likud governments beginning in 1977? How can such a limitation on rights be morally justified given that the erasure of the Green Line has been at least partly achieved…?
Uh, easily, Berman: by reversing past policy and striking a deal with the Palestinians. “Should the granting of such rights be limited by the Green Line”? Answer: YES. That’s the whole point of a two-state solution.
But “how can such a limitation on rights be morally justified?” asks Berman, given that Israeli gov’ts tried so hard for so long not to do this. Boneheaded question. By this logic no governmental position can ever be reversed. Just because Likud tried to erase the Green Line for so many years, ending such a policy and signing a peace deal can no longer *ever* be “morally justified”? Why the heck not?
Hell, most Jews think Palestinians tune into their anti-Semitic Mickey Mouse show every afternoon, when most Palestinians have never even heard of such a thing
Really? Next time I want to know what “most Jews” think, I’ll just ask KFJ.
What is considered today to be “centrist” in Israeli politics (e.g. two states) would have been beyond the pale even by leftwing (think Mapam) standards back in the day.
Barely 20 years ago. Amazing.
Really? Next time I want to know what “most Jews” think, I’ll just ask KFJ.
Having studied the opinion polls on the Jewish community until my eyeballs hurt, you can. You can also entertain my sarcasm and hyperbole without your signature fine-toothed comb, Jonathan1.
You can also entertain my sarcasm and hyperbole without your signature fine-toothed comb, Jonathan1
Hey, at least you know that somebody’s out there listening.
I wonder that myself. I presume it’s partly the sheer economic investment that would be lost there, and party the fact that’s where the majority of settlers live (250,000+ or so) and moving them would be a logistical and economic nightmare.
We need to move past this idea that some things are sacrosanct in trying to partition the land. Those 250,000 people can move, if need be.
Even more, I’d be willing to give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City if it comes to that.
But, at the same time, some things Zionists can’t compromise on . . . like (1) not one person entering Israel under a Palestinian right or return, and (2) redrawing the borders so that the Israeli-Palestinian blocs inside of the Green Line are annexed to Palestine.
There is no one-state currently. Most Palestinians in the West Bank are administered by the PA. All Palestinians in Gaza are ruled by Hamas. Even if Israel extended jurisdiction to the West Bank, the “International Community” would oppose it like it has for decades.
Administratively and almost legally, the West Bank and Gaza are states of their own with the West Bank being occupied.
Michael W – good point and it’s one that is usually overlooked by advocates of the “one-state” thing: It would be totally illegal for Israel to annex the W Bank and extend full rights to the Palestinians living there.
Communist parties around the world, including in Israel and Palestine, are firmly in support of two states.
Odd sectlets of Trots – those newspaper sellers are often for one state. Totally different.
It would be illegal for Israel to annex the West Bank and extend citizenship to the Palestinians for the same reason some Palestinian activists deem the settlements as illegal. Don’t get me wrong, I see the settlements negatively. But if one deems the occupation as illegal (when the “International Community” deterimines what is legal), why not apply the standard to all parts of the issue?
Approaching this conflict with idealism is a mistake. The Middle East is not a place to brashly implement universal goals. I think these far-left activists would agree for the same reason they would oppose the Iraq war (I also opposed the Iraq war but for a different reason).
I sometimes think these one-state advocates just write for shock value. When don’t have to look far to see why one-state would be a bad idea, just look at Lebanon and Iraq.
These one-state advocates are you usually the “apartheid” screamers as well. One-state advocacy is just a means to an end, an end of Israel thas is.
But if one deems the occupation as illegal (when the “International Community” deterimines what is legal), why not apply the standard to all parts of the issue?
This is the reason: “International Law” doesn’t really exist.
These one-state advocates are usually the “apartheid” screamers as well. One-state advocacy is just a means to an end, an end of Israel thas is.
Not necessarily. Many scream “apartheid” for the exact reason that the “apartheid”-like situation in the territories might lead to the end of the two-state option and, accordingly, to the end of Israel itself.
J1, that’s also true. Israelis like Olmert and Barak, who warned of apartheid in speeches, say so to push for two states. But it is clear who the “screamers” are, pro-Palestinian activists that will say anything to bad mouth Israel.
I haven’t read the Berman piece. but those who are dismissing the one-state solution as mere neo-colonialist elitist mishigas might wanna note the top piece on Ha’aretz’s sidebar today:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152493.html
Last update – 02:16 26/02/2010
Palestinians threaten to adopt one-state solution
By Akiva Eldar
The Palestinian Authority has warned that it may abandon its support of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which outlines a two-state solution to the conflict with Israel, and instead pursue the creation of a binational state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, according to a document drafted by the PA’s veteran chief negotiator. […]